OldCraig71
Juice Arse
The next great Roy to wear a Habs jersey, it seems fitting that it would be a Roy that leads us again.
Sure, but the context matters. It doesn't mean nothing BECAUSE it is around the norm for these guys.
I don't say the same about Suzuki for example after 4 games.
Hope he wears 66The next great Roy to wear a Habs jersey, it seems fitting that it would be a Roy that leads us again.
That's not what I am doing. And if it is a "preconception" that Suzuki can score goals in the NHL, then I'm guilty. However, the term is meaningless if used that way.Giving the same sample size different weights based your preconceptions about a player seems bad.
That's not what I am doing. And if it is a "preconception" that Suzuki can score goals in the NHL, then I'm guilty. However, the term is meaningless if used that way.
Similarly, my "preconception" that Mailloux is weak defensively was already reinforced by, you know, actually WATCHING the preseason games he played (4 including Red-White).
I'm well aware of what small sample sizes can do to stats, but my experienced EYES are telling me why Struble is having better results preventing goals than Mailloux.
Ryan Getzlaf was an AHL rookie in his D+3. He got 8 goals and 33 points in 17 games.
He will be our PP cornerstone on Kovalev spot for years. Suzuki bumper position ala Point.Kucherov too, 24 points in 17 games. What Roy is doing is outstanding. I can think of two of our recent high picks that would have greatly benefited from this approach.
Kucherov too, 24 points in 17 games. What Roy is doing is outstanding. I can think of two of our recent high picks that would have greatly benefited from this approach.
So you think I don't know how small sample sizes affect stats.I don't think so.
Posts like these are how you come as one of the top sophists on the site. Your arguments and analogies are absolutely ridiculous, and I'm sure you understand that. I'll spell them out for kicks:So you think I don't know how small sample sizes affect stats.
So to start with, It's clear you believe four games is a very small sample size and that it is meaningless due to variation. So do you think the odds of Nick Suzuki still having the same number of goals as Jordan Harris after twenty games the same as David Savrd still having the same number as Harris?
If you think there are good reasons why Suzuki is likely to have more goals after 20 games than both Savard and Harris, why can't I think that there are good reasons why Mailloux has a much worse plus-minus than Struble right now? Statistically, do you really believe is it likely that random "variation" is all that is causing the differential of 13 over just 4 games?
To be fair, though, none of us know if Roy will be a better NHL scorer due to having played this weak level of competition than if he started in the NHL already. I'm ok with Roy starting in the AHL because he has things to learn, not because of some magic confidence he will gain from beating up sub-par defences. Frankly it's the fans who gain in confidence when a player is seen near the top of the rankings of something, anything. Look at how peope went gaga over Lane Hutson last year, indignant he was not one of the three Hobey Baker finalists, when he is not even half the player Luke Hughes is right now.Kucherov too, 24 points in 17 games. What Roy is doing is outstanding. I can think of two of our recent high picks that would have greatly benefited from this approach.
Posts like these are how you come as one of the top sophists on the site. Your arguments and analogies are absolutely ridiculous, and I'm sure you understand that. I'll spell them out for kicks:
1) "Goals" are a different statistic from "+/-", in that they're generally perceived to be, for a very good reason, more reliable. Goals are about the player and the quantity of ice time, and +/- is more about linemates, random fluctuations, etc, unless you think that Struble will finish the season with +234 relative to Mailloux. The uncertainties and the biases for +/- are simply higher than they are for goals.
2) If we're making predictions of Suzuki, Harris, and Savard, we're not basing them off of four-game sample sizes. We're basing them on few-hundred-game sample sizes, we're thinking of everything they've done in the past few years and hardly considering the first four games of the season. Really, I doubt that even a single poster on here would make predictions for Suzuki based entirely off his first four games.
All this ado because you did not understand my point, leading YOU to think you had a "gotcha".3) Struble is two years older than Mailloux, so he may be better than Mailloux for some time and that in turn may be irrelevant and not worth pointing out, should Mailloux end up the better player.
I suspect that you understand all of this and that you're not nearly as dim as you pretend to be. I think that you get caught up in your own narrative and in playing "gotcha!" which leads you to repeatedly making some unbelievably spurious arguments.
Didn't read.All this ado because you did not understand my point, leading YOU to think you had a "gotcha".
No, I don't think Struble will end up at +108 and Mailloux at -126. But I do believe Struble is actually the better two-way D right now (sure, being older could be part of it) and so I am not surprised by the early +/- records, or at least the directional feature (Struble a plus, Mailloux a minus).
When I asked "do you think these stats mean nothing" I was saying that I do not believe that random flutuations are the ONLY thing causing Mailloux to have a worse +/- stat than Struble, that there are real reasons for a noticeable gap.
Unless you make a good hockey argument for why you think they are in reality equally good at the combined act of creating/preventing goals, I will conclude that you in fact agree with me.
It might have given him some confidence.Seriously, is Joel Armia a much better hockey player right now than he was a month ago?
The next great Roy to wear a Habs jersey, it seems fitting that it would be a Roy that leads us again.
So you think I don't know how small sample sizes affect stats.
So to start with, It's clear you believe four games is a very small sample size and that it is meaningless due to variation. So do you think the odds of Nick Suzuki still having the same number of goals as Jordan Harris after twenty games the same as David Savrd still having the same number as Harris?
If you think there are good reasons why Suzuki is likely to have more goals after 20 games than both Savard and Harris, why can't I think that there are good reasons why Mailloux has a much worse plus-minus than Struble right now? Statistically, do you really believe it is likely that random "variation" is all that is causing the differential of 13 over just 4 games?
If confidence is all Armia needs, then why has he never locked in great production after successful moments gave him more confidence?It might have given him some confidence.
He might like the AHL because it's easier and he still have his full NHL salary thought.
*f*** you emoji*Breaking - Joshua Roy suffers career threatening injury in NHL debut against Arizona.
I would need to know the shooting percentage and how he is playing. If I don't have that, I will conclude in case 1 that he is on a hot streak, but that it is now more possible he gets his 80 points than I thought before those 4 games.I have 3 scenarios for you, and you tell me what you think they mean:
1.) In the next 4 games, Suzuki scores 8 goals and 4 assists.
2.) In the next 4 games, Suzuki scores 2 goals and 2 assists.
3.) In the next 4 games, Suzuki scores 0 goals and 0 assists.
Actually using stats correctly. Finding outliers and examining them.That's not what I am doing. And if it is a "preconception" that Suzuki can score goals in the NHL, then I'm guilty. However, the term is meaningless if used that way.
Similarly, my "preconception" that Mailloux is weak defensively was already reinforced by, you know, actually WATCHING the preseason games he played (4 including Red-White).
I'm well aware of what small sample sizes can do to stats, but my experienced EYES are telling me why Struble is having better results preventing goals than Mailloux.
Armia always had consistency issues in the NHL and he usually got a busted knee or concussion out of his great games with the Habs, so he could never get going. Then he got Covid (at least) twice and never looked the same after.If confidence is all Armia needs, then why has he never locked in great production after successful moments gave him more confidence?
More importantly what number will he wear with the big club? Too bad because he looks great with 10.The next great Roy to wear a Habs jersey, it seems fitting that it would be a Roy that leads us again.